Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:

Finance Act 2004 (Section 91) (Deferred Surrender to the Central Fund) Order 2012,

copies of which have been laid in draft form before Dáil Éireann on 7 March 2012.

We have maintained a significant public capital programme despite the difficult budgetary circumstances of recent number of years. This programme was outlined in the medium-term Exchequer framework for infrastructure and capital investment. It will provide some €17 billion over the next five years to address remaining infrastructural defects in key social and economic areas. The ministerial order before the House today is a technical instrument. Its purpose is to allow the Dáil to approve formally the expenditure by Departments and agencies in the current financial year of capital moneys carried over from the previous year. The capital carryover facility forms an integral part of the five-year rolling multi-annual capital envelopes that were introduced in 2004. The multi-annual system is designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the management by Departments and agencies of capital programmes and projects. The carryover facility means that moneys which would have been lost to the capital programmes and projects concerned, under the annual system of allocating capital, can now be made available for spending on programme priorities in the subsequent year.

The introduction of the multi-annual capital investment system has been a major positive factor in the roll-out of capital programmes. Apart from allowing for resources that would otherwise be unspent by a Department to be made available for that Department in the following year, the multi-annual capital system has given greater medium-term financial security to Departments and implementing agencies. This, in turn, has facilitated better medium-term planning of programmes and projects and helped to eliminate the potential for wasteful spending on non-essential works to ensure full capital allocations are spent before the end of the year.

The Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866 generally requires the surrender of unspent Exchequer moneys to the Central Fund at the end of each financial year. However, section 91 of the Finance Act 2004, which gives legal effect to capital carryover, allows the carryover of unspent voted Exchequer capital to the following year of up to 10% of capital by Vote, by deferring this surrender requirement, subject to certain conditions. One of those conditions is that the amounts of capital carried over by Vote be specified in the annual Appropriation Act of the year from which the carryover is proposed. The actual decision in principle on the amounts of carryover by Vote are therefore determined in the Appropriation Act. The Dáil again has an opportunity to endorse the amounts in its decision on the Revised Estimates Volume, which shows the capital carryover amounts separately in the relevant Votes. The carryover amounts provided for in the Appropriation Act are required to be confirmed in an order to be-----

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of order, those of us who want to contribute to this debate have not received a copy of the Minister of State's script.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Okay.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I had assumed that my script would be circulated in line with the normal precedent. I presume that can be done in the shortest possible time. I apologise for the failure to do so before now. The Deputy is right. There is a precedent for doing that.

It should be noted that the Department of Social Protection had sought a carryover of €750,000. This sum was provided for in the Appropriation Act 2011. However, it transpired that the Department did not have the savings at the end of the year. Accordingly, it could not be permitted to carry that amount over. As a result, this sum has been excluded from the Schedule. The Department is required to mention the matter in the 2011 accounts that it submits to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Capital carryover within a Vote does not have to be spent on the same subhead or programme where the saving occurred. It may be spent on a different programme, depending on progress and priorities.

On the more general question of getting value for money and accounting for departmental spending generally, Deputies will be aware that the old annual Estimates process has been replaced this year with a modern multi-annual framework. This will allow for full transparency about the allocations available to each Department over the coming three-year period. It will open the way for structural medium-term planning and prioritisation within each area, across all programmes, with full public input and parliamentary oversight. It will make it easier to assess what exactly Departments have achieved and are aiming to achieve with the public funds granted to them by the Dáil. It is not enough to know how much Departments are looking to spend. We need to know, and the public needs to know, what exactly is being delivered with that money. The Government is determined to ensure every area of public service is accountable for performance and results. This will apply to Ministers and their Departments, as well as to offices and agencies.

The 2012 draft order sets out the subheads or programmes under which Departments and agencies propose to spend in 2012 the capital carryover amounts specified by Vote in the Appropriation Act 2011. The total amount proposed in the draft order for 2012 is €114.355 million, which amounts to 2.5% of the 2011 provisional outturn. The total 2012 gross Exchequer capital provision allocated in budget 2011 amounts to €3.962 billion. The capital carryover of €114.355 million will bring the total Exchequer capital available for spending in 2012 to over €4.076 billion.

I will set out the main priority areas for the spending of the capital carryover of approximately €114 million I have mentioned. Some €34 million is being allocated by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government for the Leader programme. This is urgently required to allow for the maximisation of the drawdown of EU funds for rural schemes administered by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Some €26.9 million will be spent by that Department on afforestation premia and on funding new forest planting. The Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation will be allocating slightly over €18 million in Enterprise Ireland grants and science technology and innovation. Some €15.8 million will be spent by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources on multimedia developments and retrofitting. The Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport is allocating €8.7 million for smarter travel, sports grants and Sports Campus Ireland. Some €8 million will be allocated by the OPW to make up a critical part of the funding requirement to meet contractual commitments and urgent capital works. A total of €1.33 million will be spend by the Departments of Defence, Health, Justice and Equality, and Foreign Affairs on buildings, the forensic science laboratory and the EU Presidency, respectively. The total amount is €114 million. The specific allocations comprising the €114 million are set out in my script.

Departments and agencies have delegated responsibility to manage their capital programmes and projects. The availability of these capital carryover amounts in 2012 will assist them within this framework in tackling economic and social infrastructural priorities in their areas.

I commend the order to the House.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The matter under discussion has a rather technical title and the debate is consequently one that many people will not tune into. The motion seeks that Dáil Éireann approve in draft the Finance Act 2004 (Section 91) (Deferred Surrender to the Central Fund) Order 2012. If there is a title designed to clear the House and the media gallery, that is it. Having said that, people may tune in despite the technical title. I had hoped the Minister, Deputy Howlin, would have been present because he is responsible for public expenditure and reform. Having this debate this morning is a gross insult to this House.

We all know it is required by legislation that this order be approved by the House by 31 March. There are only a few hours to go before the Dáil goes into recess, and it will not be meeting again until April. Why was it left until the very last few hours to have the debate, with a guillotine and without any detailed scrutiny? A maximum of one hour is allowed for the debate.

We would have liked to go through each item of page 5 of the Minister's contribution in committee, including the Leader programme, agriculture, jobs and enterprise, smarter travel, the OPW and other areas covered by the Minister of State's Department. We would have liked to have asked why the money was not spent in the relevant Departments last year. An impression is almost given in the Minister of State's script that the money is an allocation for 2012 and that in some way it is new money. We know it is money that was not spent last year.

I, as a Member of the Oireachtas, take grave insult to the labelling of this as a technical process. Some may say it is technical but it is anything but in substance. While the amounts referred to have been referred to in the Appropriation Act, they are included in the Estimates for each of the Departments for 2012. As we rise for the Easter recess, not one Department has brought any of its Estimates to any committee for approval for expenditure for this year.

The figures that are included in the Estimates for 2012 must be debated by a committee. In a democracy, they must be voted on by the House. The Minister of State's Department has relegated the Estimates process that has yet to take place to a position in which it is a merely technical process. As an Opposition spokesperson, I have a good mind to consider withdrawing from that process entirely given the approach that has been taken. There might have been a general round-robin discussion in the House some time ago but the process requires that each Oireachtas committee deal with the Estimates pertaining to the Department it scrutinises. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, will not be available until at least the end of April to have his first discussion with our committee on this matter. The Minister of State, Deputy Hayes, will have to appear regarding the OPW Vote.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will be appearing in two weeks with the OPW.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He will probably be the first. The Taoiseach's office must appear before the committee regarding the finance Vote. It will certainly be well into May before the House gets to approve the Estimates of expenditure for 2012, which Estimates include a figure of €114 million. The Minister of State claims the inclusion of the allocation is a technical matter but it has not yet been debated. By May, when the majority of the money for 2012 will have been spent and the remainder almost fully committed, there will be very little money available for discretionary spending. One must ask the purpose of having an Estimates debate to consider expenditure for the year after the horse has bolted. It will have been too late.

The Estimates for 2012 should have been discussed in October or November 2011. The Minister of State stated there is a new Estimates process for this year. The process for this year is not a bit new. There may be an extra bit of fluffy information attached but the process of the national Parliament discussing the Estimates for the current year has not changed, nor has the timetable. Nobody can attach any serious weight to the process. In a way, I do not blame the drafters of the script for calling this a technical issue. As far as they see it, the process is a mere rubber stamp and it does not matter what happens at committee or what is said. They believe the matter has already been decided.

Let me give a few examples of what I am talking about. The revised Estimate of the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources for 2012 - Vote 29 - is €193 million. Reference is made to €15.8 million, programmes under which the subheads for this Vote will be accounted for by the Office of the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, and which have "come by way of the application for capital supply services of unspent appropriations, the surrender of which may be deferred under Section 91 of the Finance Act 2004". This is specifically accounted for.

Vote 13 pertains to the Department of the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes. The 2012 revised Estimates for public services, which have not yet been brought before any committee, state the Estimate for the OPW for its services for the current year is being made by way of a provision of €358,69. By way of the application for capital supply services of unspent appropriations, the surrender of which may be deferred under section 91 of the Finance Act 2004, a sum of €8 million is listed. It was referred to by the Minister of State in his statement. The figure will not have been approved by the House until these Estimates are approved. Perhaps stage 1 has been approved.

I see the Minister of State smiling because he is getting approval to carry the sum forward, but it is part of the Estimates. He wants to carry it into the Estimates of expenditure to be allowed to spend it this year.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is already approved.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State has it in the front page of his book. It should either be in it or not in it. We cannot pass the Estimate for the Minister of State's Department and have the same figures earmarked for every other Department unless we approve the carryover during the Estimates discussion that will take place in April and May this year. The €114 is part of the Estimates of expenditure. If the Minister of State feels it is not and is going to take it out during the Estimates discussion, he cannot do so, as he and I know, because it is a fundamental part. Several months into the year, we will be discussing this matter.

My second question concerns the €114 million and capital works, to which reference was made. Capital expenditure in 2011 was budgeted at €4.65 billion. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, when producing capital expenditure plans for the next four years, reduced that to €3.9 billion for 2012. Is the €114 million in addition to the €3.9 billion or will €114 million be shaved off the €3.9 billion because it is being carried forward into this year? The Minister of State might explain that. These are not insignificant amounts because they come to close to the amount of moneys that will be collected by the household charge in the days, weeks and months ahead. When one considers the amount of time given to discussing the household charge which is expected to raise €160 million, this figure of €114 million deserves a similar time allocation for debate.

While the information on the Leader programme is a little light, it can be taken up further during the Estimates debate. Up to €34 million was unspent in this programme. Part of that unspent allocation is because the Government, already in its second year, has not got credit flowing through local banks. For example, a local business wishing to expand or hire more workers can apply to its local Leader company for a €50,000 grant. To qualify, it must produce bank certificates and accountants' reports to show it has the matching fund to draw down the fund. While its bank may say this is a great idea and may consider advancing the matching funds, often it turns out the bank does not have the funds and cannot advance the loan. Accordingly, the local business cannot pursue the application with its local Leader group.

Demand for Leader funding is being suffocated at ground level by the fact the banks are not providing funds at local level. The Minister spoke about microfinance and related issues. This is the issue on the ground. I have dealt with cases where people have had to borrow €30,000 from family members, aunts and uncles to match the Leader grant and get their business set up. That is not the way to start a business. Part of this drawdown failure, particularly with Leader, is because of the lack of credit. It has also been complicated by the confusion as to whether Leader could assist food companies. Under the rural development programme, Ireland and other EU countries drew down some grants for small food businesses under a wrong heading. I understand this matter has had to be examined by the Department.

Will the Minister explain whether the €144 million is in addition to the €3.9 billion or will be taken out of it? Will he respond on the lack of drawdown for the Leader programme?

Many grants could have been allocated to the smarter travel scheme. Some 35 applications were originally submitted from 11 local authorities. Of these proposals, 11 were short-listed from Cork city, Drimnagh, Dundalk, Dungarvan, Galway, Kilkenny, Limerick, Loughrea, Navan, Sandyford and Westport. The short-listed areas were then asked to submit detailed bids and business cases for investment for consideration by a selection panel involving representatives of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government as well as an independent expert on sustainable travel. It was intended this programme would be allocated €50 million. The Government, however, has actually cut that by more than half to €23 million. When such major reductions occur, it is no wonder projects fall off the rails. When the Government is cutting funding for these projects, those interested in proceeding often wonder if they should continue with them.

Under the jobs initiative last year, several on the ground, shovel-ready - that is probably the cliché used in the Office of Public Works - projects could have proceeded immediately in every local authority but did not. I accept the method for allocating funding is quite cumbersome but it should have been made available last year to facilitate improved cycling ways and safe routes to school, key businesses and work place zones. Funding could also have been made available for cycle parking in town centres and public transport nodes, better walking facilities, including pedestrianisation and reduced speed limits in town centres especially in front of schools. In the case of the latter, a speed limit of 20 km/h should be introduced at the entrances of the 3,000 primary schools and 800 second level schools across the country. I know flashing warning lights have been installed outside schools but one cannot have cars whizzing by at 50 km/h. Funding could also have been provided for works on improving or providing additional safer footpaths to and from schools and work places. Walking to school would assist in tackling childhood obesity.

Why was there no proper planning in place to ensure the funding that was tight last year was drawn down? I hope the funding in question will be properly utilised and when we debate the Estimates in April and May that we will get further details about this figure of €114 million. The Minister will have to accept we only got a one-liner in respect of each Department. Will he circulate a more detailed note to members of the finance committee in due course?

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, may find it interesting that when the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, released the Revised Estimates for 2012 he made several points that were positive. For example, he stated:

Today my Department is publishing an unprecedented amount of information about what exactly Departments have achieved, and what they are aiming to achieve, with the public funds that are granted to them by the Dáil. It is not enough to know how much Departments are looking to spend. We need to know, and the public need to know, what exactly is being delivered.

The Minister was on the button in that.

On this morning's Order of Business I raised my concern that contrary to normal practice and the briefing note given to the Whips, this issue, be it technical or whatever way it is defined, was to be submitted to the finance committee but that did not happen. Will the Minister explain why this did not happen?

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have answered that. The date of the committee sitting was changed.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We need an answer as to why that was the case. It is clear to all of us sitting in this large Chamber that this is not the appropriate forum to have this discussion with set piece interventions and so on.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Agreed.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A multi-annual budgeting framework is entirely sensible and is exactly how we should do our business. It is also entirely reasonable that from year to year there would be a level of capital carryover. The last thing we want to do is to encourage what can be a damaging culture in any Department or organisation of spend it or lose it by year end. We know this gave rise to some bad practices in the past. In principle, I have no issue with capital transfers.

The Government seems to have a thing for 31 March deadlines. We are close to the mark and I agree with Deputy Sean Fleming that we are dealing with this matter very late in the day.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That deadline was established in 2004.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is coincidental then. I wanted more information than was given in the Minister of State's script. It would be helpful, for example, if for the €26.9 million under the heading for the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine it was shown what percentage this figure represented of the original capital budget. Agriculture, agrifood and the rural economy are critical to our economic performance, the social cohesion of rural Ireland and so on. In this light and given our straitened times, how is it that there was an underspend of almost €27 million? According to the Minister of State, it is not necessarily a prerequisite that the moneys carried over will be used for the same purpose.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There could be changes.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand. We need to know the purpose to which the €27 million will be put.

Defence is to take a further €500,000 in respect of buildings. The Government has closed barracks across the State. How did this underspend occur? What, in the name of all that is rational, is this about at a time when, instead of ensuring the upkeep of buildings, they are being vacated by Army personnel?

I am given the most cause for concern by the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, where the underspend was greater than €18 million. This relates to Enterprise Ireland grants, science and technology funding and micro-finance. Every Deputy is being inundated by people who are desperate to get their hands on funding for their start-ups and new ideas, some of which are good. When they approach their enterprise boards, they are often told that there is no money left. They go elsewhere and are told that the cupboard is bare. The Minister of State, my Opposition colleagues and I require more than a one-line statement about there being an underspend of more than €18 million. How could this occur in a climate in which there is a virtual credit drought? Small and medium-sized enterprises, SMEs, and new innovations, technologies and start-ups will return the bulk of the almost 500,000 people who are on dole queues to work. Will the Minister of State address this point?

The Minister of State should discuss the headlines item by item and indicate what percentage of each original capital budget is represented by the proposed carryover. I appreciate that he might not have the information with him, but will he explain why there was an underspend in each case? To what purpose will the underspends be put?

The manner in which Estimates are handled by the Oireachtas is deficient. I am still a relative newbie, but it is astonishing that the process by which moneys are allocated and spent is sequenced so irrationally. We discuss moneys that have been spent and moneys that have not been spent but are intended to be spent. The entire process is incoherent. I took the Government's word when, upon taking up office, it promised greater transparency and coherency in the budgetary process. I am disappointed, as this has not proven to be the case. The sum of €114 million is not insubstantial. We need a more detailed account from the Minister of State and some members of the Cabinet of why this underspend occurred.

I will echo another Member's point. It is unlikely that the State will yield anything like €114 million from the household charge.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If I may disturb the Deputy for one moment, I note in the order that there is no provision for a reply by the Minister of State. I will ask the Chief Whip to move an amendment to the order so that a reply can be given.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will conclude my sentence. The Chief Whip is present. Given the fact that 31 March is like the charge's D-Day, perhaps the Government could accept Sinn Féin's Bill to repeal the charge. Unless the Government can tell the House exactly where the €114 million will be spent and why it was not spent originally, let us carry it over to write off the household charge. How is that for creative thinking? I am sure the Minister of State will welcome my proposition with open arms.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The flood walls would not get built.